Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Willie Green; Lancey Howard
Rather than becoming frantic over a single report of "wear and tear" suffered 20 flights ago,

Actually, the report is much more sinister than a simple wear and tear issue. The guy in charge of inspecting these parts of the Shuttle makes that clear that this was a huge amount and that the amounts had been increasing. (Since the Freon-less formula had been used.)

295 posted on 02/03/2003 12:22:34 AM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies ]


To: Jael; Willie Green
Actually, the report is much more sinister than a simple wear and tear issue. The guy in charge of inspecting these parts of the Shuttle makes that clear that this was a huge amount and that the amounts had been increasing. (Since the Freon-less formula had been used.)

"freon-less"

Uh, can we back up for a second here? Is this "freon-less" formula what the NASA guy meant by "environment friendly"?

Am I correct in believing that this change in formula was caused by pressure from enviro-whackjobs??

AM I GETTING THE FEELING THAT THE ENVIRO-SCUM MAY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DISASTER???

300 posted on 02/03/2003 12:35:30 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies ]

To: Jael; Lancey Howard
Actually, the report is much more sinister than a simple wear and tear issue. The guy in charge of inspecting these parts of the Shuttle makes that clear that this was a huge amount and that the amounts had been increasing. (Since the Freon-less formula had been used.)

Sinister? Well, I suppose you might use that word since the report is more subjective and speculative than it is quantitative and analytically objective. Not that there's anything inherently "evil" about subjective and speculative analysis when 1 data point (the wear and tear experience on 1 flight) is all you have to go on.
As stated previously, there was a passing comparison to the previous flight that the damage was "greater". But that really doesn't supply any quantitative comparison as to the degree it was greater, or to what quantitative level it may or may not have impinged upon the level of acceptable wear and tear.

Naturally, "zero" wear and tear is desirable, but that doesn't happen in a complex and imperfect world. Some level of wear and tear must be expected, and maximum acceptable limits established. We, out here on the Internet, simply don't have the information to know whether or not the damage exceeded the maximum limit for acceptable wear and tear.

It is certainly worth knowing that a change to freon-less foam occurred for the data collected on flights STS-86 & 87, but that doesn't supply answers. It only raises additional questions for analysis. What type of foam was used in the subsequent flights and what quantifiable damage levels where experience then? Where there any other changes, trends, etc. etc.???

Heck, I can think of several ways I'd like to see some quantitative data accumulated and analytically presented that may be helpful. Not that the info in the report that Jael has posted isn't of interest. It is. It just isn't sufficient information upon which to draw any conclusions.

324 posted on 02/03/2003 8:11:35 AM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson